Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Several myths about Soviet-American relations vis-à-vis third actors—unlimited military competition during the Cold War; perfect future political harmony; international political status quo and lack of significant change—may get in the way of possible cooperation in conflict avoidance, management, and resolution. This article examines the historical and structural setting that has created a proper climate for parallel U.S. and Soviet initiative and joint diplomatic efforts regarding Third World disputes. Conflicts that may lend themselves most to joint U.S.-Soviet involvement on behalf of conflict regulation or resolution are (1) conflicts outside local spheres of influence, (2) conflicts where the leverage available to Washington and Moscow with respect to one or both disputants is greatest, (3) disputes that can be paired and are subject to workable quid pro quos, and (4) conflict situations that can be submitted to international organizations within which the superpowers hold significant membership. Pragmatism and flexibility will serve the superpowers well in their quest to generate a more stable and secure Third World political environment.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. John Lewis Gaddis , The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 237-245.

2. William G. Hyland , “America's New Course,” Foreign Affairs, 69(2):12 (1990).

idem , Systems in Crisis: New Imperatives of High Politics at Century's End (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

4. Christine A. Bogdanowicz-Bindert , Solving the Global Debt Crisis: Strategies and Controversies (New York: Harper & Row, 1989).

5. Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr. , “Bureaucratic Politics in the Soviet Union and in the Ottoman Empire,” Comparative Strategy, 6(3): 333-362 (1987).

6. Philip E. Mosely , “Soviet Search for Security,” in Soviet-American Rivalry in the Middle East, ed. J. C. Hurewitz (New York: Academy of Political Science, 1989).

Daniel Druckman , Human Factors in International Negotiations (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1973).

8. Seweryn Bailer , The Soviet Paradox: External Expansion, Internal Decline (New York: Vintage Books, 1986), p. 330.

9. Paul Doty , “Strategic Arms Limitation after SALT I,” in Arms, Defense Policy, and Arms Control, ed. Franklin A. Long and George W. Rathjens (New York: W. W. Norton, 1976), p. 72.

10.

10. That is why both a two-track arms control policy and a larger U.S. military presence in the gulf were advocated in April of 1990, although in the complacence of the interval they were largely ignored. Charles F. Doran , “Gulf Security in Perspective,” in The Gulf, Energy, and Global Security: Political and Economic Issues, ed. Charles F. Doran and Steven W. Buck (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1991).

11.

11. George Liska , Russia and the Road to Appeasement: Cycles of East-West Conflict in War and Peace (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982), pp. 176-201.

12.

12. Charles F. Doran , Domestic Conflict in State Relations: The American Sphere of Influence (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1976).

13.

13. Marshall I. Goldman , USSR in Crisis: The Failure of an Economic System (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983).

14.

14. Joseph S. Nye, Jr. , ed., The Making of America's Soviet Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 339-349.

15.

15. Richard Rosecrance , America's Economic Resurgence: A Bold New Strategy (New York: Harper & Row, 1990), pp. 176-177.

16.

16. Joseph Collins , “Soviet Policy toward Afghanistan,” in Soviet Foreign Policy, ed. Robbin F. Laird (New York: Academy of Political Science, 1987).

17.

Alfred Stepan , “The U.S. and Latin America: Vital Interests and Instruments of Power,” Foreign Affairs, 58(3): 659-681 (1980).

18.

18. Adda Bozeman , Conflict in Africa (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976).

Conflict and Cooperation: Between the Cold War and the Gulf

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References